Offr-NCO-NCM Relationships
- Thread starter Pikache
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,009
- Points
- 1,010
So, what about MCpl disciplining a Cpl or Pte? Same mess, same drunken debaucheries.Johnny Canuck71 said:
Or a buddy who goes CFR and now in higher chain of command position?
If there has to be non fraternization between officers and NCMs in the name of discipline, somewhere down the line, someone forgot to tell everyone what professionalism means, meaning, if someone higher up in chain gives you a lawful order, you do it, no matter how close you are or buddies or whatnot.
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,786
- Points
- 1,110
I think what people like 2023 and Al are trying to get at is that how can you follow an order from someone that drinks, parties, acts like a dumb ass and such with everyone else - I find it difficult to take people that do that all time seriously. When I have problems taking that person seriously, that leaves an awful lot of doubt in my mind and makes me think twice about not only the order itself, but the motive behind it - like am I being directed to do something because I don`t hang out with this guy and his buddy/buddies/buddyettes and it`s distasteful to them and therefore am I getting it dumped on me? etc ad nauseum. That is a rather contagious problem and it`s something other subordinates pick up on quite readily and it continues to roll down hill. This is a problem I`ve seen alot of and it can ruin a unit - it causes an awful lot of division.
Professionalism is like loyalty - it goes both ways. You follow orders when they`re given, but the person that gives the orders has to act in a professional manner as well.
My $0.02.
MM
Professionalism is like loyalty - it goes both ways. You follow orders when they`re given, but the person that gives the orders has to act in a professional manner as well.
My $0.02.
MM
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The onus is on the higher rank to conduct themselves professionally. If you can spend some time with your troops and kick back a bit, you can get some valuable insight into the inner workings of the group. But it will all go to a dump if you have to discipline someone and hesitate because you are to "buddy buddy" with them. Being able to drop the hammer despite the closeness will foster respect, since your subordinates will realize you will do what you have to in the long run no matter what. If you can't do that, time to create some distance.
I agree with Medicineman that perceived favoritism will create all kinds of hassles and dissention.
I agree with Medicineman that perceived favoritism will create all kinds of hassles and dissention.
- Reaction score
- 6,469
- Points
- 1,360
Quote from Johny Canuck 71,
it's unprofessional for a subordinate to see his superior piss drunk or to get piss drunk with him or her.
I call BS on this. Gee, heavens forbid one sees that his superiors are human too. It would be unprofessional if thats what they were doing all the time.
I used to enjoy when we had a chance to have a troop smoker and make things a little more informal if only for a couple of hours.
Made me think more of, not less of, when the ones that were true leaders had no problem popping a few cans with those whom they wish to lead.
...and then like 2B said depart at the appropriate time. [ and again, one in tune with his troops would know when that was]
On my French course there was an Arty MWO and a {CAR} PPCLI WO [whom at 37 SMOKED me in the SSF Ironman
] who we called Roger and Earl for the 10 months.
[course policy then, not sure now] After 10 months of that informality I would have followed them anywhere/anytime/anyhow as they showed true leadership by accepting these conditions even though they had spent many years working to a point where I should've had my heels together addressing them.
Thats what leadership is about.......again, like 2B said......time and place.
it's unprofessional for a subordinate to see his superior piss drunk or to get piss drunk with him or her.
I call BS on this. Gee, heavens forbid one sees that his superiors are human too. It would be unprofessional if thats what they were doing all the time.
I used to enjoy when we had a chance to have a troop smoker and make things a little more informal if only for a couple of hours.
Made me think more of, not less of, when the ones that were true leaders had no problem popping a few cans with those whom they wish to lead.
...and then like 2B said depart at the appropriate time. [ and again, one in tune with his troops would know when that was]
On my French course there was an Arty MWO and a {CAR} PPCLI WO [whom at 37 SMOKED me in the SSF Ironman
] who we called Roger and Earl for the 10 months.[course policy then, not sure now] After 10 months of that informality I would have followed them anywhere/anytime/anyhow as they showed true leadership by accepting these conditions even though they had spent many years working to a point where I should've had my heels together addressing them.
Thats what leadership is about.......again, like 2B said......time and place.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Johnny Canucks point was very direct. There are always eceptions to every rule. IE Sqn Smokers, Mess Dinners etc etc. ButI think he was getting more on the point of hanging out and watching NASCAR together.
In our Regiment in Germany we has an individual MCPls Mess where they could go and relax by themselves.
We have lost this, and it puts us with the leaf in an odd predicament when we have to put our game face on to hand out discipline.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have to say I don't think you've lost anything by not having your own mess to go to as a MCpl. The vast majority of Trooper / Corporal types know that when a Jack tells them to do something, they're not to screwed around with. Everybody knows that MCpl's are the ones down on the hangar floor making sure things are running smoothly, the Warrants orders are carried out and handle 90% of the Troops Admin issues. They also are the Troops first contact with the leadership and as such, they should be in the same mess. However, I also believe that once a Corporal has been promoted to the MCpl. rank, he should be immediately removed from his Troop (preferrably the whole Squadron) but this doesn't happen very often. This is where I've seen the most problems for MCpl's. One minute they're peers with the Troopers / Corporals, next, they're the whip. Quite often, the poor S.O.B's are left in the Troop (Usually as the Troop leaders Gunner) and they're placed in an unfortunate situation because now the boys in the Troop still see him as (insert first name here).
My .02
My .02
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I think that there should be a place for MCpl's to hang out, separate from the soldiers. In the LdSH, they have the Green Point Lounge rest area, and I have heard some other units have similar set-ups. Why? So that they can relax, and let their hair down, so to speak, without worrying about some Tpr or Cpl overhearing the MCpl talk about another soldier. We had our own tent lines for MCpl's in Bosnia (jn our Sqn), and I think it was very effective, as it allowed the soldier's to vent without the MCpl overhearing, and vice versa. I know when I was a Tpr I thought it was bullshit for the MCpl's to have their own mess in Cyprus, but then again I was only a Tpr and didn't understand these things.
I also agree regarding once promoted a MCpl should move to another troop or Sqn, but it can depend on circumstances, obviously. In some ways it would be better for them to stay put, as they are more comfortable in that environment and it will make for an easier transistion, but the familiarity aspect can also impede the enforcement of discipline.
In this same vein, I think that when an NCM CFR's or goes the UTPNCM route, they should have to rebadge (assuming they stay in same trade of course) or move to another unit/brigade etc. Moreso at the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt rank level to 2LT/Lt, because there would be too many pers who were far too familiar with that soldier when they were an NCM, and then when they come back as an officer, they are at a disadvantage, IMO.
Al
I also agree regarding once promoted a MCpl should move to another troop or Sqn, but it can depend on circumstances, obviously. In some ways it would be better for them to stay put, as they are more comfortable in that environment and it will make for an easier transistion, but the familiarity aspect can also impede the enforcement of discipline.
In this same vein, I think that when an NCM CFR's or goes the UTPNCM route, they should have to rebadge (assuming they stay in same trade of course) or move to another unit/brigade etc. Moreso at the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt rank level to 2LT/Lt, because there would be too many pers who were far too familiar with that soldier when they were an NCM, and then when they come back as an officer, they are at a disadvantage, IMO.
Al
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'll admit that it would be nice for the MCpl's to have a rest area somewhere in the Regimental lines. The Officers have the Centurion Room, the NCO's the Sgt. Holland Room and the riffraff hang out at the Canteen, but there is no definitive rest area for the MCpl's. I see you point as to why it would be a good thing to have. I still believe that they belong in the same Mess as the Troopers & Corporals, but a Regimental rest area would be good.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
RecceDG said:
Hey, I agree absolutely. I think the problem isn't so much that the Ocdts are being taught that they're superior in the qualitative sense, it's that some seem to misinterpret doctrine on officers. Having the "lead by example", "you're supposed to be the example/best/etc", constantly drilled into you sometimes gets translated into "I am the example/best/etc." - obviously wrong, but I've found it happens with some. Another mis-step that seems to happen with a few is that they take the old fashioned "officers = educated, troops = ignorant peons" stereotype seriously, falling into the "education = intelligence/worth" fallacy. Then there are the occasional "you guys learn alot faster than recruits" comments by instructors (either directly, or over-heard) which don't help. Filtered through a selective set of ears that comes out meaning "you're better than recruits". Watching 10 minutes of recruit drill, then 10 minutes of Ocdt drill should eliminate that misconception, but apparently not.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
It's not that Ocdts are taught to be haughty...some of us are just pricks, plain and simple. For this I apologize....in my (very short) time in the army, I've seen some very humble yet confident Ocdts who seem to learn fast, and I've also heard Ocdts be cocky bastards who often lecture the rest of us peons on how things really 
perate.
So far, the indoctrination I've been recieving has been focused around the Ten Principles of Leadership. Number one being, ACHIEVE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE. Most of the others can bascially be summed up in: "care about everyone but yourself. All you need to do is keep your feet, face and rifle clean so ypu can focus on the mission and the troops at hand". I know I know nothing, I'm reminded all the time. Hell, so I should be. If I want an example to set...look to the senoir NCMs or older officers. Some of those I work with still seem to belive that they rule by divine right..
But the actual concept of having seperate offcier and NCM classes? Personal opinion here. From what I've red and I've seen, the seperation of the army into the two different classes is not simply a matter of hierarchy, it is very functional: the officers handle different aspects of fighting and take on largely operational as opposed to purely tactical decisions, leaving the more experienced NCMs to focus on combat and advise the officer. Well, this is just my impression from the sensory bombarment I've recieved, tell me if I have it all wrong.
I've only ever seen the Commandant at five times maximum, perhaps twice off the sqaure, but you can damn well be sure that I know who B/Gen. Lacroix is. That's a matter of professionalism. I may be an Ocdt, but I know this at least.
perate.So far, the indoctrination I've been recieving has been focused around the Ten Principles of Leadership. Number one being, ACHIEVE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE. Most of the others can bascially be summed up in: "care about everyone but yourself. All you need to do is keep your feet, face and rifle clean so ypu can focus on the mission and the troops at hand". I know I know nothing, I'm reminded all the time. Hell, so I should be. If I want an example to set...look to the senoir NCMs or older officers. Some of those I work with still seem to belive that they rule by divine right..
But the actual concept of having seperate offcier and NCM classes? Personal opinion here. From what I've red and I've seen, the seperation of the army into the two different classes is not simply a matter of hierarchy, it is very functional: the officers handle different aspects of fighting and take on largely operational as opposed to purely tactical decisions, leaving the more experienced NCMs to focus on combat and advise the officer. Well, this is just my impression from the sensory bombarment I've recieved, tell me if I have it all wrong.
I've only ever seen the Commandant at five times maximum, perhaps twice off the sqaure, but you can damn well be sure that I know who B/Gen. Lacroix is. That's a matter of professionalism. I may be an Ocdt, but I know this at least.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The first OPDP module used to espouse how officers were the only true warriors; NCMs were merely technicians of particular trades/weapons, with NCOs to direct the labour. Only officers could be considered warriors as they studied the theories, strategies and mindset of war.
A couple of caveats: first, I read that part of the module about 16 years ago; and second, I have no copy of the module or reference to it.
It was an oddly worded chapter, but it hints at more than just a professional difference between officers and NCOs/NCMs, at least in the minds of some. Anyone know if this is still part of the curriculum? Or how far off my understanding of it was?
A couple of caveats: first, I read that part of the module about 16 years ago; and second, I have no copy of the module or reference to it.
It was an oddly worded chapter, but it hints at more than just a professional difference between officers and NCOs/NCMs, at least in the minds of some. Anyone know if this is still part of the curriculum? Or how far off my understanding of it was?
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
Well, if that's true, that would definitely explain some of the bizarre ethics and attitudes displayed by some of the officers I've had the (dis)pleasure to work for, as opposed to 'with'.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I hesitated in adding an unreferenced statement (especially like that one), but even though time has passed I do not think I’m too far off what was actually written, and it seemed on topic (at least at that point in the thread).
I only went through 1 module at the time so I am assuming it is the first one (there were about half a dozen or so modules in the OPDP). With the advent of OPME, OPDP may not be accessible, however if you know of a link I would gladly do the legwork on this (my searches don’t result in any course materials).
While that remains in purgatory… It has been pointed out in this thread (and in Review of CF NCM Rank Structure? http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24425.0.html)that in different places MCpls have had their own separate places away from the troops while in most others they do not. This -extra messing- would seem to indicate that the CF is unsure on how the MCpl fits into the structural rank/social relationship.
Given that Officers do not have a split like this while NCOs do, is there a better way? Should there be an NCO mess instead of a Senior NCO mess? If not, then could the same reasons for keeping the section 2ic separate from the Senior NCOs also be applied to the section commander (as in – should there just be a WO mess)? Or is something everyone thinks Hellyer got right?
I only went through 1 module at the time so I am assuming it is the first one (there were about half a dozen or so modules in the OPDP). With the advent of OPME, OPDP may not be accessible, however if you know of a link I would gladly do the legwork on this (my searches don’t result in any course materials).
While that remains in purgatory… It has been pointed out in this thread (and in Review of CF NCM Rank Structure? http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24425.0.html)that in different places MCpls have had their own separate places away from the troops while in most others they do not. This -extra messing- would seem to indicate that the CF is unsure on how the MCpl fits into the structural rank/social relationship.
Given that Officers do not have a split like this while NCOs do, is there a better way? Should there be an NCO mess instead of a Senior NCO mess? If not, then could the same reasons for keeping the section 2ic separate from the Senior NCOs also be applied to the section commander (as in – should there just be a WO mess)? Or is something everyone thinks Hellyer got right?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
loyalist said:It's not that Ocdts are taught to be haughty...some of us are just pricks, plain and simple. For this I apologize....in my (very short) time in the army, I've seen some very humble yet confident Ocdts who seem to learn fast, and I've also heard Ocdts be cocky bastards who often lecture the rest of us peons on how things really
I dunno - I've seen relatively reserved Ocdts turn into spontaneous a**holes when the issue of recruits comes up (or recruits are nearby). They weren't like that on day 1, but they were on week 6. As I said, it's not explicitly "taught" but the doctrine on officers seems such that many misinterpret it to say things about themselves that it's not saying.
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
You can choose to treat someone with contempt, or you can choose to treat them with respect and a professional demeanor. No-one forces you to treat them with contempt, neither does the "system" train you to do so, no matter what you know of them. The one moving part in the system you control is yourself - and only you are responsible for how you choose to treat others.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Sabre1918 said:
What a curious interpretation of that old saying. Must be hard to make friends that way.
I always though the "contempt" part pertained to if you are too familiar with your troops they will have contempt for your authority.
